Bitcoin of some sort is here to stay but in my opinion it will only get to the masses when masses will stop thinking about it. How much do you think about how a card works when you make a payment? You just accept it that it works that's it. So that what I believe we have in store to bitcoin. People are not interested call bitcoin or token or apple pay. They care if it solves a problem or makes their live easier or cheaper. In current form bitcoin does not do these these things to it's best. But I'm a big believer. It will change the way people do business but when they will stop noticing it.

That's right. But I think that it will be the blockchain that is massively adopted first, by massive institutions. Even banks that first try their own proprietary blockchains will discover that they might just as well use the bitcoin blockchain too, if only for backup data-archiving purposes. In other words, institutions will drive adaptation for their own internal purposes, and only then begin offering bank accounts and debit- and credit-cards that use bitcoins in a way perfectly transparent to the their customers, who, as you say, will not care about the mechanics. They just want to slide their cards or wave their phones. And that preference will be served. I think this will happen even before online gambling moves decisively to the dark web. So legal-market adaptation would drive illegal-market adaptation. (After which online bitcoin gambling will be legalized.)

All of which means that institutional use of the blockchain for tamper-proof data storage may well be the upward driver of the price of bitcoins for the next several years.

Except for bad economic news of course. The Euro may be bitcoin's second killer app after the blockchain itself.

I could not agree with you more.

Before this happens people like you and me who are diehard converted would have to solve a couple problems to get institutions going.

1. SLAs - Blockchain has non. No serious business would adopt the tech without SLAs.2. Regulators - that have to be convinced that blockchain is as good if not better in settlement compare to the existing highly regulated Central Counterparties.

To you point regarding side chains or managed coins, I'm not convinced. They will play with that but any form of managed blockchain takes away the censorship resilience that bitcoin naturally have. The tech needs to evolve.

You couldn't agree more, but...

You seem to say that firms will establish their own blockchains, and use them internally...

How does using an internal blockchain lead to: "All of which means that institutional use of the blockchain for tamper-proof data storage may well be the upward driver of the price of bitcoins for the next several years."

If by "SLA" you mean Service Level Agreement, I think they could be incorporated into a bitcoin smart-contract, but there would be nothing to stop blockchain transactions between known, mutually agreeing parties from being governed by traditional contracts and agreements. Expediency and cost will determine which.

As for government regulators, I think they will be convinced by the blockchain technology and its performance just as banks are quickly being convinced, and for the same reasons. In a way, the regulators are already convinced, since state legislators (as in California and New York) are passing laws recognizing the basic legality of cryptocurrency transactions.

I think that firms or government departments will (at least at first) try to use their own internal blockchains. But I also think that they will eventually realize that the bitcoin blockchain will be far more stable than anything a centralized entity can create. But even internal, proprietary blockchains would boost the bitcoin blockchain because it would likely be used as backup. So it's reasonable to suppose that at first institutions will not trust the bitcoin blockchain at all; then trust it for use as backup; and then use it as a primary tool to ensure their encrypted records have not been tampered with. Budgetary considerations would also support a pro-bitcoin consensus: why reinvent the wheel?

Bitcoin of some sort is here to stay but in my opinion it will only get to the masses when masses will stop thinking about it. How much do you think about how a card works when you make a payment? You just accept it that it works that's it. So that what I believe we have in store to bitcoin. People are not interested call bitcoin or token or apple pay. They care if it solves a problem or makes their live easier or cheaper. In current form bitcoin does not do these these things to it's best. But I'm a big believer. It will change the way people do business but when they will stop noticing it.

That's right. But I think that it will be the blockchain that is massively adopted first, by massive institutions. Even banks that first try their own proprietary blockchains will discover that they might just as well use the bitcoin blockchain too, if only for backup data-archiving purposes. In other words, institutions will drive adaptation for their own internal purposes, and only then begin offering bank accounts and debit- and credit-cards that use bitcoins in a way perfectly transparent to the their customers, who, as you say, will not care about the mechanics. They just want to slide their cards or wave their phones. And that preference will be served. I think this will happen even before online gambling moves decisively to the dark web. So legal-market adaptation would drive illegal-market adaptation. (After which online bitcoin gambling will be legalized.)

All of which means that institutional use of the blockchain for tamper-proof data storage may well be the upward driver of the price of bitcoins for the next several years.

Except for bad economic news of course. The Euro may be bitcoin's second killer app after the blockchain itself.

I could not agree with you more.

Before this happens people like you and me who are diehard converted would have to solve a couple problems to get institutions going.

1. SLAs - Blockchain has non. No serious business would adopt the tech without SLAs.2. Regulators - that have to be convinced that blockchain is as good if not better in settlement compare to the existing highly regulated Central Counterparties.

To you point regarding side chains or managed coins, I'm not convinced. They will play with that but any form of managed blockchain takes away the censorship resilience that bitcoin naturally have. The tech needs to evolve.

You couldn't agree more, but...

You seem to say that firms will establish their own blockchains, and use them internally...

How does using an internal blockchain lead to: "All of which means that institutional use of the blockchain for tamper-proof data storage may well be the upward driver of the price of bitcoins for the next several years."

If by "SLA" you mean Service Level Agreement, I think they could be incorporated into a bitcoin smart-contract, but there would be nothing to stop blockchain transactions between known, mutually agreeing parties from being governed by traditional contracts and agreements. Expediency and cost will determine which.

As for government regulators, I think they will be convinced by the blockchain technology and its performance just as banks are quickly being convinced, and for the same reasons. In a way, the regulators are already convinced, since state legislators (as in California and New York) are passing laws recognizing the basic legality of cryptocurrency transactions.

I think that firms or government departments will (at least at first) try to use their own internal blockchains. But I also think that they will eventually realize that the bitcoin blockchain will be far more stable than anything a centralized entity can create. But even internal, proprietary blockchains would boost the bitcoin blockchain because it would likely be used as backup. So it's reasonable to suppose that at first institutions will not trust the bitcoin blockchain at all; then trust it for use as backup; and then use it as a primary tool to ensure their encrypted records have not been tampered with. Budgetary considerations would also support a pro-bitcoin consensus: why reinvent the wheel?

I think you are both right. May be you can enlighten me. Would an internal blockchain be much different from a database? I see security as the biggest concern can you as easily compromise database as an internal blockchain? Migrating into existing one would solve this issue.

Regulators are peculiar beasts their objective are protecting consumers, ensuring market integrity, and promoting effective competition. While technology is little understood especially if you look beyond common cases of using blockchain for moving value around and consider smart contracts, coloured coins and digitised securities neither tech nor regulators are there yet. Hopefully they will get there soon rather than later.

SLA is how quickly can you process a transaction, can blockchain guarantee transaction time? I do not see how. If you as a business for example exchange have to push transaction and guarantee it's time how can you do it? Can you mine your own?

Good point about an internal blockchain being any better than a [hackable] database! Unless it was open source code, an internal [proprietary] database wouldn't be any better. But of course, if the code were open source, then bitcoin coders could incorporate any improvements (if any) into the bitcoin blockchain. If the proprietary blockchain were closed source, it would have no credibility at all. My point is that internal, proprietary blockchains might just be baby-steps towards full adaption of the bitcoin blockchain, recapitulating the world's adaption of the Web circa 1994. Remember that it took some time -- although not too long -- for Visa and Mastercard logos to start showing up on websites selling porn. Now that's adaptation.

As for regulators and their mission, as one who lived through the early days of the Web, I remember being struck by how fast and how well governments adapted to the Web and began implementing their services with it. It was really quite remarkable. The states and the feds got on board with unexpected facility. I personally think that will happen again with the blockchain -- or at least I for one won't be surprised if it does. Remember that cost will be the driver -- money saved is money that can be spent somewhere else.

As for guaranteeing transaction times, it is important not to put the cart before the horse. Bitcoin technology right now is what it is. No one is talking about a deadline for transitioning bank and governmental services to the bitcoin blockchain. And even if the confirmation time should get much longer than it is now, that would not necessarily invalidate its usefulness. Consider the blockchain's use as nothing more than a backup encrypted database. Well, so what if it takes an hour for a transaction to be confirmed? Before blockchains came along, internal databases were hackable -- alterable -- as long as they existed.

Why would a internal blockchain be any different from bitcoins blockchain?

If a bank will use blockchain it would set up miners that compete with each other and validate the work of the others. Since they had complete controll they could keep the hash power under controll. The system would stable as they did not have to worry about mining pools taking shortcuts.

Why would a internal blockchain be any different from bitcoins blockchain?

If a bank will use blockchain it would set up miners that compete with each other and validate the work of the others. Since they had complete controll they could keep the hash power under controll. The system would stable as they did not have to worry about mining pools taking shortcuts.

basically it's like having a bitcoin with 51% legit hashpower that can double spend when they want, a bit akin to their printing no-sense, no thanks...

the main difference is that it would look heavy centralized, and also i doubt they would waste money on mining equipments when they are doing this only for cutting cost and time,

at best they could launch a pos altcoin and distribute it via national ID, something like a better version of auroracoin...

Why would a internal blockchain be any different from bitcoins blockchain?

If a bank will use blockchain it would set up miners that compete with each other and validate the work of the others. Since they had complete controll they could keep the hash power under controll. The system would stable as they did not have to worry about mining pools taking shortcuts.

basically it's like having a bitcoin with 51% legit hashpower that can double spend when they want, a bit akin to their printing no-sense, no thanks...

the main difference is that it would look heavy centralized, and also i doubt they would waste money on mining equipments when they are doing this only for cutting cost and time,

at best they could launch a pos altcoin and distribute it via national ID, something like a better version of auroracoin...

A bank would need a miner to make a transfer. One antminer in every location would be enough for a small bank. A big bank or several bank cooperating would need a pool in each location. To get it to work flawless they would need to have the same hash power in each location.

Since we are talking about a mainstream adaptation and not some geek tool they dont need to be fully open to be trusted.

Why would a internal blockchain be any different from bitcoins blockchain?

If a bank will use blockchain it would set up miners that compete with each other and validate the work of the others. Since they had complete controll they could keep the hash power under controll. The system would stable as they did not have to worry about mining pools taking shortcuts.

basically it's like having a bitcoin with 51% legit hashpower that can double spend when they want, a bit akin to their printing no-sense, no thanks...

the main difference is that it would look heavy centralized, and also i doubt they would waste money on mining equipments when they are doing this only for cutting cost and time,

at best they could launch a pos altcoin and distribute it via national ID, something like a better version of auroracoin...

A bank would need a miner to make a transfer. One antminer in every location would be enough for a small bank. A big bank or several bank cooperating would need a pool in each location. To get it to work flawless they would need to have the same hash power in each location.

Since we are talking about a mainstream adaptation and not some geek tool they dont need to be fully open to be trusted.

they need many miners to secure their own network if they want to go with POW, otherwise a malicious random rich guy can buy the asic that work with the same algo(i presume sha256) that they want to use and perform an attack, by owning 51%

that's the point of the mining in bitcoin, securing the network, and you can't replicate it overnight

Why would a internal blockchain be any different from bitcoins blockchain?

If a bank will use blockchain it would set up miners that compete with each other and validate the work of the others. Since they had complete controll they could keep the hash power under controll. The system would stable as they did not have to worry about mining pools taking shortcuts.

basically it's like having a bitcoin with 51% legit hashpower that can double spend when they want, a bit akin to their printing no-sense, no thanks...

the main difference is that it would look heavy centralized, and also i doubt they would waste money on mining equipments when they are doing this only for cutting cost and time,

at best they could launch a pos altcoin and distribute it via national ID, something like a better version of auroracoin...

A bank would need a miner to make a transfer. One antminer in every location would be enough for a small bank. A big bank or several bank cooperating would need a pool in each location. To get it to work flawless they would need to have the same hash power in each location.

Since we are talking about a mainstream adaptation and not some geek tool they dont need to be fully open to be trusted.

they need many miners to secure their own network if they want to go with POW, otherwise a malicious random rich guy can buy the asic that work with the same algo(i presume sha256) that they want to use and perform an attack, by owning 51%

that's the point of the mining in bitcoin, securing the network, and you can't repliacte it overnight

I think someone with the knowlegde to set up a blockchain network also know how to secure it from outside attack.

If bitcoin get dapted by the masses it would face the same problem. Someone like Google or Microsoft both has the knowledge and economy to set up a miner that dwarfs all the curent miners. We are not talking about 51% but 510%...

it's make me confused i must stay or go. you know when i see price bitcoin so make me sad. sometimes when i read news bitcoin will go up and in real bitcoin price drop. should i go or stay

don't look on its price, just still work for it and earn more and grow your coins, just keep waiting until its price goes up again then you can now sell your coins and repeat it again, just keep focus on earning and growing your bitcoin.

it's make me confused i must stay or go. you know when i see price bitcoin so make me sad. sometimes when i read news bitcoin will go up and in real bitcoin price drop. should i go or stay

don't look on its price, just still work for it and earn more and grow your coins, just keep waiting until its price goes up again then you can now sell your coins and repeat it again, just keep focus on earning and growing your bitcoin.

Well i suggest you to think about the benefits that offers bitcoin, where can you use it and so on.

it's make me confused i must stay or go. you know when i see price bitcoin so make me sad. sometimes when i read news bitcoin will go up and in real bitcoin price drop. should i go or stay

don't look on its price, just still work for it and earn more and grow your coins, just keep waiting until its price goes up again then you can now sell your coins and repeat it again, just keep focus on earning and growing your bitcoin.

Well i suggest you to think about the benefits that offers bitcoin, where can you use it and so on.

Staying sounds good rather than leaving it at this stage. As the users of bitcoins are increasing day by day and there would be a day where the prices would be higher and more stable as compared to present. So staying and growing bitcoins is the best option at present.

it's make me confused i must stay or go. you know when i see price bitcoin so make me sad. sometimes when i read news bitcoin will go up and in real bitcoin price drop. should i go or stay

don't look on its price, just still work for it and earn more and grow your coins, just keep waiting until its price goes up again then you can now sell your coins and repeat it again, just keep focus on earning and growing your bitcoin.

Well i suggest you to think about the benefits that offers bitcoin, where can you use it and so on.

Staying sounds good rather than leaving it at this stage. As the users of bitcoins are increasing day by day and there would be a day where the prices would be higher and more stable as compared to present. So staying and growing bitcoins is the best option at present.

Yes the users of bitcoins are increasing day by day, so the price will go up like before, but need to go slowly and safely.

i think the best time to buy bitcoin for those who didn't buy enough back when the price was supper low at $220 and missed the chance is now.because the price just came back down from $310 to ~$280 so it makes a good point to enter if you have been left behind.

I believe it would be best to wait a little more before going into huge buying sprees, the rest of the US will be waking up in a few more hours and there might be some more selling off that could bring the price ever lower. A lot of people do not yet know that Greece is being given another chance.

The best time when you must bought bitcoin is when its price is so low and then you sell it again when its price goes up and now you earn profit from doing that.

I did the same. Bought when prices were low and sold part of it when prices went high and earned a good profit not a huge one but atleast I earned something and now again I am waiting the prices to go down so can buy some more

At present staying is the only option left. No one wants to incurr losses and leave. If I have invested when the prices were high I cannot afford to leave at a moment as I am into losses. So I would rather choose to stay and leave only when I am earning profits out of it.